xlpanel

It seems that the ACLU would have a very firm and easily winnable case here. A goverment giving tax dollars out to an institute that discriminates on grounds or religion and gender. If you were a homo and didn't want your dollars going to the BSA through the goverment, you would have very good grounds. Why should your tax dollars fund a private institution that won't ever include you?

If we would have read the actual police report full of facts, instead of the opionated writings of a reporter, we would see no mention of a cell phone video. This means, that EVEN IF THERE WAS A VIDEO, the police did not collect it. And if I was a defendant and that happened, that video would be long gone. nldscout has a post on the thread about the actual incident in which he lists differences from the newspaper and the police report. This means no cell phone video for evidence.

What they did was wrong, but that still does not mean they will get convicted. Its gonna be a long court fight for both sides, and right now it looks like the defense has the evidence leaning in their favor. They might be wrong, but luckily they can plead the 5th, and not give the DA what he needs to get a conviciton. What they did might have been the worst thing in the world, but you still cannot prove someone guilty without having better evidence. Innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is on the affirmative.

I obviously noticed you used sarcasm there, which would NORMALLY make a person think that you understood that the news reports generally never contain the straight story, or even the full set of facts. But you seem to be taking what the media is stating as complete facts. nldscout listed some things from the police report that directly conflict with the story. And if you really want the story from every perspective, I suppose I could ask everyone involved to submit an individual account of it, but they would think it was funny that such a trivial one time 5 minute thing for them has surfaced many months later on an internet discussion board and has provoked hours of discussion. If you REALLY want me to get individual accounts, it just might be fun to do so. But I bet the time I spend explaining to them WHY they should take the time to write it out for me would be 4x the time it took to read them. And evmori, maybe the youth "should just accept the consequences for what they did". But that is not how it works in the real world. That is the point I am bringing here, referencing back to the hazing story. As long as the prosecutor cannot prove intent (which he can't as he has no way of knowing), the boys get off. Now, if YOU were one of the accused, would YOU accept the full punishment, realizing it would impact your search for a job, college, basically anything you decided to do in the next 20 years? Or would YOU take it to court and fight it if you could win the case and suffer no ill effects, even if you were guilty?

Thats a quote from a media article. Now, when have we known the media before to report stories that don't contain the true facts? Today actually. The Local TV station was warning people not to mow their grass in the middle of the afternoon, as they might overheat and catch hypothermia. I would trust the police report, which is what I have my quote pulled from. The police report does not mention a cell phone video. nldscout also says "Other than the 21 yr old, the camp staff here committed several errors which are going to cause the DA a ton of problems trying to prosecute" The police report neither confirms or denies that it was urine. If the police forgot to check, this leaves an almost guaranteeable outlet for the defendants. Plus, it seems that the camp staff have even made it harder to prosecutre through mistakes.

nldscout states that in the actual police reports, "3. There is no mention of cell phone pictures, the report does not mention it, only pictures the deputies took" And all the cell phone could prove is that they had the kid. Im not denying that. I am saying they will not successfully be able to prosecute as they cannot prove the intent of the scouts to actually make him drink vs the intent to scare the kid.

Yeah its slanted evmori, and you are lapping it up, at least in the hazing at summer camp report. The stories I told were not made up, but they were not printed anywhere, either. "You might want to review the history of the fifth amendment. There's a good reason why many defense lawyers do not want their clients on the stand at trial, and there's an even better reason why the Constitution protects people from having to testify on their own behalf. You're a teacher, you say - I hope you don't teach government!" I don't know how this has any relevance to me showing that a spun story version can be made. It may be made because one side won't speak up initally, but it is still spun, nonetheless. And of course defense lawyers don't want their client to speak out publicly, what if he makes a big mistake in something he says? Thats why I say, all you have to do is give the police your name and address when they arrest you. Withhold all other statements until you have your lawyer with you. And if I did teach goverment, this 24 page publication by the ACLU about what to do if the police come calling is the first handout I would give them http://www.aclu.org/kyr/kyr_english.pdf

Alot matters. I am looking at this from a perspective the defense lawyer would. It may not be 'ethical' or 'moral' according to you what he does, but this is how it is going to work: 1. If there was no test of the bottles, the lawyer can say it was just juice or colored water, and they were just going to scare the kid. He will pull on the jury's hearts to not ruin the rest of the life of three kids over apple juice. It will work especially well if he gets old guys who have fond memories of pulling stuff like this themselves as kids. I could see this clearing the defendants entirely. 2. Even if it was urine, the lawyer can still argue the intent of the kids. It won't work as well as it would with just juice, but it still will have some effect. No one, other than the defendants, knew their intent. Finally, remember "innocent until proven guilty". Also, the defendants cannot be guilty of making him drink urine, as they never did make him drink it. All the prosecuter can claim is intent, and lets face it, no one knows the intent the boys had. All the defense has to do is convince the jury of no-intent and they get off. Just like the myspace mom who got her case thrown out. You think you have all the evidence in the world and a strong case, the media is on your side until both sides of the story, AND THE ACTUAL LAW are looked at. And now we start jumping on me for defending another kid again? If you had read my last post on the subject and understood it, you would see that I did not want the kid to bring it to campouts for the sake of the other kids, but would not punish him for it. A nice, "please don't" would be enough for me. If he was the only kid on a campout, all by himself, in a place where he would not subject other scouts to stuff they did not want to see, I would have no problems with him browsing it. Also, what he does in his own time too is no concern to me. Finally, I understand that there is a law on that subject. BUT, would you turn him in for it? If no, you are an accomplice in his law breaking. Also, if you speed you are breaking the law. Also, the under18/no possess law could be deemed old and silly from some viewpoints, same as the law that states that taking 3 sips from your beer can without standing/sitting seems to you. I Hate to bring this all up again, and definately on a different thread, but you can thank evmori for pulling it up out of the grave. I'd make a pretty good teacher, actually insisting on listening to BOTH SIDES of a dispute before making a decision. Remember, the prosecution always carries the burden of proof. They have to PROVE Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, that they were actually going to make him drink the urine. Not just show they had urine, but PROVE they were going to force him to drink. There is no way to prove this, as only the defendants know the true intent. And they certainly won't be saying anything that will incriminate them.(This message has been edited by xlpanel)

I cannot provide the real news source, as there is none. Sadly, people I know don't make the news too much. However, I can find many examples of media stories spun different ways: http://www.akdart.com/med6.html Read all of them And I agree that the defendants haven't spoke out due to lawyer restriction. Judging them already, however, is wrong. As wrong as having a court trial for the defendants, but not letting them say anything in their defense.

Has it actually been verified through testing that it was urine in the bottles, and not just colored water or juice? And It seems that spraying someone with bodyspray against their will is alot worse than threating them to drink urine against their will, but not following through.

lets see, 4 on 1, depriving someone of their mobility and sight, the terror of not knowing what will come next, feeling something sprayed on you, not knowing what it is for at least some period of time... Sounds intriguing, if it happened to you, what would you want done? ^^^^^^^ This was what old grey eagle thought about the short version of my story on the hazing thread. If you read the first version, taken from a twisted standpoint, it validates his claims. BUT, if you take the story that lists all the facts, it invalidates his claims. That is why you never base your views of an incident based on media stories you read.

Remember the swine flu? What, no? I kinda do, vaguely. The TV networks talked about it nonstop for two days about how everyone was gonna die, and then it was gone. Every media outlet is trying to spin a sensationalist story. They never repeat all the facts. For example, When Michael Jackson died, the TV networks were reporting it as news, when it was unverified. WIKIPEDIA, on the other hand, had locked the MJ page, and was not gonna change the status until VERIFIED information was available. I will now give you an example on what the media does to spin stories. Media Story "Boy Gets Jumped on School Trip" (Spun to support buy who got jumped) While on a school overnight fieldtrip, Johnny Kasper was ruthlessly jumped and attacked by four other, larger and stronger, boys who pretended to be his friend for most of the trip, just to lure him to the hotel room they jumped him in, with false promises. As soon as poor Johnny stepped foot into the hostile room, one of the four youth immediately slammed and bolted the door shut, effectively trapping Johnny. Then, as soon as Johnny turned around to see what the mean youth offenders were trying to do, he was ruthlessly and painfully tackled by another offender. The Two other offenders then grabbed the bedsheet, in a fully premeditated plan, and then proceeded to wrap Johnny's head up in it, cutting off his vision, and impacting his breathing. The original door slammer then decided to torture Johnny even more. He then proceeded to get some Axe Bodyspray and then proceed to spray it nonstop on the bedsheet, under which was Johhny's angelic face. This action is clearly disgusting, as it seems the four perpetrators were slyly suggesting that Johnny had a horrible smell. The four attackers then held Johnny trapped until they realized that if they did not stop Johnny would be horribly missed, so they grudgingly released him in order to avoid detection. This inconsiderate attack may very well be what caused Johnny's team not to win at the state competition the very same day. Media Story "School Trip ends in Fun For All Attending" (Told True to Facts) While on a school overnight fieldtrip, Johnny was invited over to another kids room to watch a disgusting lady on TV talk about how her school has banned physical contact of any time. This includes tag and other games. No high-fives, either. Johnny was going to leave, but the other kids convinced him to stay and play Video Games. Johnny forgot to close the door on the way back in, so another kid nicely closed it for him. Sadly, the battery in one of the controllers was run down, so no games could be played. Two of the kids then said to each other, "Lets Get Johnny!". Johnny Replied, "Stupid Freshman, you can never jump me, I be a senior." This goading by Johnny then caused the two freshman to rush him and bring him down to the floor. However, as Johnny was falling down, he grabbed onto the bedsheet, and it halfway fell over his head. The two guys who were on the bed, mad at their sheet being pulled from under them, proceeded to hold in on Johnny's head. Johnny couldn't see, and his glasses were getting messed up under the sheet, so the other kids gave him the opportunity to take off his glasses and place them on a dresser before they continued. One of the boys had an empty can of axe spray that only had air pressure left inside, and they decided to make Johnny think they were spraying him with axe, but they were not really, as they realized how that could get in Johnny's eyes and irritate them. The four boys them wrestled Johnny trying to keep his legs and arms contained, as well as the sheet over his head. They had to pause for a bit, as Johnny's wriggling had accidentally knocked the clock on the floor, and it needed to be picked up. After that, they again tackled Johnny, and kept him under submission until it was time to leave the hotel to go to their competition. Johnny and the Freshman walked out the door together after fixing the room, and Johnny was distincly heard to say "Stupid Freshman". The Freshman and Johnny just laughed when one of them replied, "Do we need to get you again like back at the hotel?". A Good time was had by all, and one of the three competition teams earned first place in the state competition. Do you guys see how a story can be spun different ways depending on the word choice and facts stated. A story that only has facts from one person (the first one) only reports it one way. There are always two sides to every story, and you must hear every side before you make a decision. The First story sounds horrible, when presented as such And the Second story sounds like a fun time schoolkids had while on a trip. IT HAS ALL THE DETAILS, too.(This message has been edited by xlpanel)

Parlor uniforming exactly. There is no way our troop could survive for two days on a campout in scout uniforms (even the new designed ones) without destroying a couple. Football games turn into "who ripped off all my buttons", and this is from experience. Running through the woods turns into "what thorn plant or tree limb poked a hole", again from experience Cooking turns into "Who was it that dribbled food on my uniform while I was eating" Sitting by the fire turns into "Who made me sit so close to the fire my uniform caught on fire" Climbing rocks turns into "OMG, this uniform won't give my arms free range movement" from experience Many other things you cannot do in a scout uniform. It ACTUALLY shows the scout who values his uniform most does not wear it alot, as he does not want to tear it up.

Alot. In court the boys can successfully argue their actual intent to force the kid to drink vs. just scare the kid. On another scenario, how about a group of 4 boys jumping one, wrapping up his head in a blanket, and then spraying bodyspray on his head? Would that be any different? Would you want prosecution for that?

A January 2007 study released by Youngstown State University deemed that academic performance did not increase due to uniform use. The same article also lists some benefits of uniforms: 1. Decreases conflict over clothing 2. Decreases clothes with innapropriate sayings 3. Decreases clothes-displinary rate 4. Helps to detect intruders Well, if kids argue over clothing on campouts, you are not running a good enough program. Next, if kids wear innapropriate clothes on campouts, you have to enforce that is not ok True to standard, if kids cannot wear shirts that are agaisnt the rules, you do not have to punish them, and discipline rates go down Finally, who wants to sneak into a boy scout camp? This seems to do nothing to promote character Here is the link to that article, but you have to have an Academic Search Complete Account which costs money to view the fulltext. http://kidd.blinn.edu:2056/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=104&sid=e3b666c1-d7e3-4901-8c77-bb7f16740bd9%40sessionmgr108 Next article mainly states that the only reason we need uniforms in schools are so people won't be offended by statements they don't agree with. You don't get to ban everything that offends you by any means. Doesn't boy scouts teach the scouts to respect others' views? Article can be viewed here http://kidd.blinn.edu:2056/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=104&sid=706d2e59-c386-41c5-abc1-d4fd2f0e66dc%40sessionmgr102 Again, subscription required. Finally, one last point on the use of uniforms. It is what a society does to remove uniqueness from the individual. You cannot hide the fact that one kid is rich, and another is poor. But if you are running a good model for the kids and REALLY teaching them character, they can easily look past this and only see the person.

BrentAllen, you have a horrible judge of character if you believe that wearing a certain item of clothing changes how you act. If that was the case, AND THERE WAS ANY RESEARCH, to back that opinion up, wouldn't everyone at school be forced to wear suits or boy scout uniforms, "as they will be much better behaved and have better character"? Clothes do not make a person what he is. If you get a criminal and dress him in a suit, he is still a criminal. If you get a boy scout and dress him in Aero clothes, he is still a boyscout.

Did they actually make him drink, or was it just threatened?

If suits change in style to remain cool, it only seems smart that the scout uniform should take the same tactic to help promote people to join.

And even if you don't buy into the "its who is in the program" idea, then the acceptance of a suit wearing kid by his peers but not a uniform wearing one would rest on one simple item: Design. If uniform were designed as well as suits were, it wouldn't be a problem, that way. Main thing is, you gotta make the uniform cool to get it worn outside of events. How you can do that, I don't know. You could possibly pay the NFL to outfit players in Scout uniforms next season. Main thing is, you gotta show them what the uni can do, but you can't do that if they won't join. You gotta get em in, and if the uniform is in the way, it goes. Reference back to extemp, the kids didn't join or attend to wear suits, they attended because they liked the program, and the natural high they get on making their opponent start crying in the middle of the round. Add that to scouts pl0x?(This message has been edited by xlpanel)

Brent Allen, I have an intereting point about wearing a suit to discuss with you. My Son will wear a suit AT SCHOOL, in front of his peers, at least 6 times a year, as need be for various academic "presentation" competitions against students from many others schools, all across the state. Bring in the coolness factor here again. He gives 50 minute presentations where 4/5 of what he says is extemporary relating to what happens in the competition. And he totally kicks ass at it. Other students clamor at competitions to get to watch him. And not to make fun of him, either. He has told me before that sometimes everyone who is not doing anything at the academic meet will come watch him. He and another student have totally brougt this academic event up from nothing to one of the top 10 in the state. It has gone from, in the beginning, the school having trouble justifying traveling 300 miles for two students, to now, the school having a waiting list for students that want to travel with the extemp team just to watch them, as there is not enough transportation room. He has no qualms or worry about doing that. However, he will never wear a scout uniform to school. The simple explanation for the two comparisons above is that extemp is percieved as "cool" but scouts is percieved as "uncool". Why is that? Extemp dresses up way more than scouts, and they do it in front of their peers, too. This whole thing references back to my earlier point, it is not what you do, but who does it. And if you have to get rid of uniforms to get the "who does it" kids in scouts then so be it. If doing so can increase attendance and excitement level, why not? Finally, why does my son have no qualms about wearing suits in front of peers, but does about wearing the uniform?

The coolness of a scout troop is not decided by the scouting program (mainly), but by who is in the unit. If you get the right kid, you can immediately have 5 or 6 more cool members join. For example, we got the right kid in in our troop who has an inside pulse on the other kids at school, he was able to defuse fears, and suddenly you have many others showing up, too, such as: The guy that has 75% of the girls in his freshman class chasing him all the time. Girls ask this guy to go out with them before they even know his name Things snowballed from there, and this guy now has our whole football team secondary in scouts. How did it happen? We didn't lure the scouts with the uniform. It was never mentioned. The kids just talked about funny things other kids have done and what adventures they had and it worked. So we obviously need to recruit cool popular guys, and the only way I see that happening is by not forcing the uniform on them. If not wearing full uniform could increase attendance by 50% would you do it? Also, for $50 for a pair of pants, buy the kids something the really like. You can get two aeropostale jeans for that price.

Remember, this thread is not about "repeat what some high-ranking BSA guy said about uniforms". That is all very well to say about current enforcement, but that is not the purpose of the thread. The thread is to discuss these, not repeat them. And I will take a shot at the green whatever Once again, I'll defer to Green Bar Bill: The Values of the Scout Uniform 1. The Scout Uniform gives the boy a true sense of BELONGING. It submerges his self and makes him group conscious of his Patrol, his Troop, and the Boy Scout Movement. ------ Also, the uniform gives him a sense of UNBELONGING. It distances his self and makes him self conscious when with other Friends, School, and other ogranizations. 2. It provides for true DEMOCRACY. With all boys in Uniform, the external differences between poor boys and rich boys disappear. ------- The whole idea of "Forced Uniform Wear" without letting the wearers of said uniform have any say is laughable when claimed ot support democracy. As the difference between poor and rich close, the difference between cool and uncool deepen. What rich boy is gonna want to dress the same as a poor boy and lose coolness as a bonus? 3. It continuously and persistently brings to the boy's mind the SCOUT IDEALS for which the Uniform stands and reminds him that he has promised to do his best. ------- If all the uniform does is remind the boy about Scouting, surely just a wristband that said "Do Your Best" would suffice. If every scouter wore a cool wristband, and the band really was cool, kids would wear it to school. I think that if the boy is on a SCOUTING trip, he should surely remember scouting, even if he is not in uniform. 4. It adds to the boy's ENJOYMENT of Scouting. The very design of the Uniform makes it possible for him to play the game strenuously, the way boys want to play. ------- This one is again laughable. The boys have clothes that allow them to enjoy strenuous activities such as Underarmor and other tight fabrics. The uniform is loose haning and traps moisture, which leads to scouts NOT being able to enjoy whatever they are doing outside. And uniforms cannot hold up to strenuous activity. Try rock climbing in one? First, the sleeves are not built right for full arm movement above head. Try playing tagging games such as football, a wrongly placed hand can rip off 2 or three buttons very quickly, and this is from experience. 5. It encourages ADVANCEMENT. A boy seeing Badges and Insignia blossoming forth upon the Uniform of a chum or member of his Patrol will want to earn them for himself. ------- If the only motivation for a scout wanting a new rank badge is that Timmy has one now, he is in scouts for the wrong reasons. Welcome to Meet the Joneses 2.0 6. It gives added opportunity for SERVICE. The Scout in Uniform is chosen for civic service projects before the Scout without one, because the Uniform itself adds to the boy's effectiveness in performing many services. ------ Well, self explanitory. We should all drop uniforms, so the lazy scout that does not wear one will not be allowed to sit and watch those wearing uniforms work. I can't think of any meaningful civil service projects I would do in a uniform anyway. I would not make a trail or any physical work, as that is a great way to ruin your expensive shirt. 7. Earning the money with which to secure the Scout Uniform teaches a boy the invaluable lessons of THRIFT and PERSEVERANCE. -------- It also teachers the boy that money is not really his. He has to spend his money he earned through his THRIFT and PERSEVERANCE the way someone else wants him too, just to please that person. Is that a good lesson after all? 8. The ultimate acquisition of the Uniform establishes in a boy the feeling and sense of worthy OWNERSHIP, and encourages neatness and GOOD GROOMING. ------- Wouldn't the boy feel worthy of owning anything he owned? If the boy doesn't value other articles of clothing besides his scout uniform, that is messed up. And now wearing a special shirt and pants promotes good grooming? It seems to me that the boy going out in public would be enough to promote that. If that is not enough, then a shirt is not gonna change anything. Green Bar Bill, Scoutmaster Handbook The Whole Complete uniform is a racket. To make money. The scouts do not need $50 dollar special pants. Do having the right PANTS make a scout have character? Who determines that pants give character? Is there any studies, or is this blind speculation that costs everyone lots of money? Pants a racket. No one would buy them if not mandated for NYLT or anything, so they mandate them to get people to buy. Then you still see only half the kids there in official pants. The ones without offical pants still learn, correct? Also, the new uniform is even worse than the old one in terms of marketability. Scouts have asked me, when they were getting a new uniform, if it would be possible for them to obtain a larger version of the old one, than one of new design. The Scout Pants have a fundamental flaw when being marketed to youth. The ZIP OFFS zip off WAY above the knee. That ruins the design for 95% of youth. If they just had the old uniform, removed half the patches and readjusted things slightly to make it less obtrusive and dressy, allowed jeans or shorts with no official socks more kids would join. What makes a program? The people in the program, or the clothes that those people wear? On a final note, BSA now does sell boxers. Possibly a sign of things to come?

A solution may be gained by allowing boys to compromise together. If you have twelve scouts in your troop, and go on 6 outings a year that require you to attend church, You could let the boys form "groups" and let each group have a say. If you divide the boys (4 Prot and 8 Catholic) into 6 groups, you will go to the Protestant Church 2 Times, and the Catholic Church 4 times, which accomadates your troop on two grounds: 1. Members are taken to a religious experience that they believe, and are given a chance to experience the beliefs of others 2. Still preserves the 'majority rules' mentality where the troop does what the majority wants to do, the majority of the time HOWEVER, I personally question the decision of taking boys who went camping over the weekend to church before they have a chance to go home. They are tired and dirty after two days, and probably do not want to dress up in their uniform and get it dirty just for church. You have experienced so much resistance because the leaders are tired and want to get back home to their families. The scouts want to shower. Possibly you could just allow the adults that insisted that their scouts attend early church pick them up early? I know this may (on far out campouts) cause mommy to drive 3 hours round trip, but if church is REALLY that important for them, mommy will do it. In fact, the mommies can collaborate and even carpool the kids. It IS better to make 1 parent drive three extra hours than to make 15 people sit through an hour of something they would rather not be at. And Finally reference back to the poster that said making scouts do a prayer at meals is hard enough. Agreed. Scouts will not do that unless an adult is there supervising. And when they do, the "prayer" is generally funny, "Dear God, thank you that when Johnny tripped he did not land on the broken glass. Also, thank you that my team won in football today, and that SM has not found my hidden food stash in my tent. Thank everyone for attending to eat this food at 9:30 tonight. Lets Eat!" Again, a camout is generally faced paced, and the boys have stuff they want to do, this is understandibly the first thing dropped. In you don't do the prayer, nothing happens to you. If you don't pick your paper-towels off the ground, SM yells at your patrol and stops your game. Did you ever consider that the scouts may have something that they want to do on Sunday, and that they need not sacrifice their remaining weekend free time to please one or two avid church attenders. To sum up the long post, Just have one of the 'die-hard' church attending parents volunteer to take the 'die-hard' church attending kids to church, and leave earlier than everyone else if it is a problem. Do not disconvience the majority to convienence the minority.(This message has been edited by xlpanel)

I feel what you say about twitter, and want to let you know I fully believe it is just a fad. Twitter is just so simple - You have a place where you can leave a comment or an image. It is just a scaled-down version of a forum like this. It could be coded by a basic web programmer in two hours. Two hours of work that made a guy 50 million. However, as fast as it was made, it goes. Myspace, the biggest thing in a long time (to some people) ---- One time net worth: 1.2 billion. Now: 1.2 Million. The same thing will happen to twitter and it will fade out. Twitter is nothing more than a scaled down forum. What it had was celebrity endorsements - Oprah Barack etc. Success is not determined by how good the product is -- but by who uses it that is famous. You see the same thing happen where a band has been together 10 years and made 100 flop songs, release 1 song that goes to #1 on the Billboard for 20 weeks straight, and after that goes into 100 more flop songs. Twitter will be over soon as it is nothing special or unique. As soon as Oprah gets bored of it it is gone.

Lets look at some quotes "And Dick Cheney got blamed" Yes he was a leader. The VP. His advisor though? "Truman had a sign on his desk that said "The Buck Stops Here"." Who gave him that quote? "If the cook screws up the dinner," - If the cookbook had a misprint and said 2 cup salt instead of 2 tsp, who is everyone gonna blame? The book or the cook? "if the navigator gets the patrol lost, if the guy who was supposed to do cleanup doesn't do his job, it is the Patrol Leaders responsibility. It may not be entirely his fault, it may not be his fault at all" - The leader still gets blamed you just said... While the leader may blame the navigator, the Scoutmaster blames the patrol leader for arriving late. And really, the brighest minds are the ones behind the candidates. Do you think Bush could run a successful campaign by himself? Never. It is the brilliant mind behind him that tells him how to act that gets the job done. Was Bush a leader? Or was he a figurehead for all his advisors to speak through? Believe me, it is alot more fun to be the guy that makes a plan that will get a person in power, and carry that plan out perfectly, than to be the person who is put in power. Because both you and the person in power know it was YOU who won him the election.